June 20, 2012

In the unedited version, Mitt Romney comes off as highly impressed with Wawa’s sando-kiosks. And in MSNBC’s edited version, Mitt Romney comes off as highly impressed with Wawa’s sando-kiosks.

In a statement sent to me this afternoon, MSNBC stands behind the editing: “MSNBC did not edit anything out of order or out of sequence and at no time did we intend to deceive our viewers.”

But the video at the link, which bills itself as the "full Romney video" is still clipped out of context. It's not "unedited" as Wemple asserts! It lacks the anecdote about the optometrist dealing with government bureaucracy, which is why Romney told the Wawa story: for contrast. The point wasn't: gee whiz, technology is amazing. The point was: Government, unlike private business, lacks the incentives to make things easy and efficient. Yes, the new clip contains a summary to that effect, but the rest of the context is missing. The effort is to make Romney sound as silly and scattered as possible. Under criticism, some of the context was put back. But it was only enough to try to palm it off as context, and the Washington Post is promoting the palm-off.

Anyone not blinded by a wishful desire for Obama to win knows that Obama would never have been edited like that. And if somehow a short clip (like MSNBC's original Wawa clip) had gone out and gotten mocked, the mainstream media would have fallen over itself getting out the longest, most favorable form of the context, used the occasion to promote whatever point Obama was making and to praise him for his brilliance and eloquence in making that point, and denounced right-wing media for its nefarious out-of-context attack.

Wemple does go on to say that Wawa really is in the forefront of technology here, and it actually wasn't dumb to get gaga for Wawa. Fine. That too. But the key point — maybe the central theme of Romney's campaign — is that competition, free markets, and capitalism work and he's the guy who really knows about it. He's a pretty exciting candidate when you think about the expertise he's offering to bring to running the federal bureaucracy. That's what the mainstream media doesn't want people to see. Only Obama is exciting. Only Obama is brilliant. But no! Both candidates are brilliant and exciting. The question is which way do you want to go?

Well, there you have it. I didn't need to see the clip, or of Andrea Mitchell. I tried to but failed because the sites were annoying and so was the subject and now this is better than all of that. Thank you. I do appreciate this. The time you have saved me is immesu immes emmisur probably measurable.

This has been going on for decade after decade. Not sure what the breathless surprise is all about. Liberals think we are stupid. They think if they stick to their story, people will buy it. Some will, but the choir is getting smaller.

Nobody tell Ritmo that there WAS mention of a 33 page document and a lot more context.

I saw the version which the MSNBC version on the left (irony?), with the full version on the right, running simultaneously. The full version runs throughout, while the MSNBC edited version comes in and out, almost comically.

Romney continues to impress. Without the Mitchell kerfuffle, that speech was still a well-given talk and, as AA notes, Romney was working the audience well.

More lame attempts from the MSM at The Narrative to Protect/Deny Incompetency. Romney may or may not be many things, but "competent" is certainly something he clearly IS.

If you pretended that candidate Obama was not incompetent and unprepared for the job and voted for him anyway due to the thrill of not being a "racist" (or whatever the reason may have been), what did you think was going to be necessary to cover for him once the job actually began?

Especially with his ignorant choices for VP and cabinet members?

What did Obama voters actually think was going to happen during his presidency given his greatest skill set, which is obviously "myth-making and blame-assigning"?

As this is all over the Blogosphere and it's been on Fox (and presumably talk radio), nobody is getting fooled at this point, so why the WaPo is cheerleading this can only be chalked up to the same corruption that's existed at the rag since WoodStein.

Hell, the Romster probably knows more about touchscreens than Mitchell and the rest of the talking orifices at MSLSD and the WaPo combined.

"This has been going on for decade after decade. Not sure what the breathless surprise is all about. Liberals think we are stupid. They think if they stick to their story, people will buy it. Some will, but the choir is getting smaller."

What's different is that everyone's recording video, MSM can be caught, and new media is completely well-established to do the catching and to grind their faces in it, painfully.

That's where we are right now.

Who knows? Maybe mainstream media journalism will get better. Maybe it will die.

I don't know. I'm new media. I'm observing the process (and being part of the process).

That side by side comparison video is damning. The two videos seem to be about entirely different things just because they cut out what was the real point he was making. That editing is absolutely childish. I can see why they left out what they did - it's a great speech. Romney is a much better and more natural speaker than Obama. People aren't fawning over him. Nobody is standing there all wide eyed with their mouth hanging open like a stooge. They are listening to real down to earth concepts. Can you even imagine one of them expecting him to pay their mortgage or fill their gas tank.

He never promised to mess with the sea level either, so he has that going for him.

I liked Treacher's comment about MSNBC best, made in the wake of the Walker recall effort. Something like "Who knew that there was a cable news comedy channel set up for the entertainment of conservatives?"

That's what I noticed from the clip. He's got poise and self-confidence mixing it up without a teleprompter. He seemed very natural. He makes a much better impression than Obama does in the likeability department.

It's hard to understand these media types trying to make Romney look like he doesn't know anything about Wawa. Do they actually expect any of us to believe that any of them have ever set foot in Wawa? I'm betting Andrea Mitchell would starve to death befor she'd eat a Wawa sub! And even then, she'd send an intern to get it.

Romney proves his "out of touch" to the MSN with his Harvard Law and Harvard MBA degrees obtained concurrently.

Obama proves his brilliance for having been an Editor of Harvard Law Review.

Romney proves his "out of touch" for having been head of Bain Capital.

The MSM dinosaurs are extincting by suicide right in front of our eyes and want to drag us with them. Some day, we'll tell our grand kids what a fascinating sight it was to see them struggling for their last gasp.

The astonishing part of all this to me is the cluelessness of the Washington/New York media relative to how clued in the rest of us are by virtue of the internet and blogs such as this. I would doubt that Andrea Mitchell or any of her colleagues spend as much time on the internet as many of us do. And I believe she would be truly shocked to know that we know what we know and view her and her ilk as we do. They are simply out of the loop there in their bubbles.

"Only Obama is brilliant. But no! Both candidates are brilliant and exciting. The question is which way do you want to go?"

Please explain what it is about Obama that makes you and the corrupt liberal media think he is brilliant.He has been given a free ride all his life. He has gone through his whole life on a scholarship so to speak. His Presidency has been a complete failure so that can't be the reason.

That is my honest take Scott M. Kerfuffle. This is a *roll eyes* kind of story. Y'all are so lathered up, one would think the media had sacrificed his first-born child. I'd think you'd be glad it gave Rush a new riff. The man's gotta eat.

Was it a "roll your eyes" kind of story when they did the same thing to the Zimmerman audio? How much integrity does someone have to lose before you stop "rolling your eyes" and take notice above the kerfuffle level?

There you go again. One would think that the fate of Zim is going to be decided in an epic struggle between sound bites and the heroics of this blog. Wait...you really DO think that way. I foresee a made-for-TV movie.

One would think that the fate of Zim is going to be decided in an epic struggle between sound bites and the heroics of this blog.

I could care less. I mentioned the hatchet job that NBC was reporting as hard news, got busted with, and had to apologize for specifically in the context of the hatchet job they did on Romney yesterday.

Nope. I did ten years of that already, thanks. Mentioning it as a "kerfuffle" is an offhand, humorous way of saying a mountain out of a mole hill. That doesn't change the fact that it was a hatchet job, it just means nothing much is going to come of it. An honest appraisal of the initially presented clippings would identify it as such, maybe remark how unfortunate it is, and we'd all get on with our lives.

Very cute, bgates. The Wawa story wasn't even creepy, and your "quote" was. Nicely done. But I bet even dreams can figure it out. ESPECIALLY if you followed it up with another little blurb that said the first quote didn't "intend to deceive." Big hint there....

The WaWa kerfuffle is particularly galling, given Romney's role in the launch and development of Staples and other ventures. It's easy to forget exactly how revolutionary Staples was, and Romney was one of the first to see its implications for retail. He also was governor of one of the most sophisticated states (in terms of technology and business innovation) in the country. I'd gladly take the wager that Romney's knowledge of technology and retail processes vastly outstrips the knowledge of Andrea Mitchell and the other hacks in network news. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney knows more about the business and technology of *network news* than those guys, too!